'More in-demand than Beyoncé tickets' — Everything that happened at the Scottish Public Law Group conference

The Scottish Public Law Group (SPLG) hosted its 2025 annual conference last month, attracting a sell-out crowd from the public law sector for a day of insights and updates, writes Jennifer Jack.

Tickets were, according to one Scottish government solicitor, more sought after than Beyoncé tickets, so the lucky lawyers who gathered at the Kimpton Charlotte Square hotel in Edinburgh had high expectations. Feedback suggests that those expectations were met as the stellar line-up of speakers delivered essential briefings on weighty topics such as the rule of law today, human rights, developments in public law in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the role of the law officers and the public law implications of the change of UK government one year on.

Ruth Crawford KC welcomed the delegates on behalf of conference sponsor Axiom Advocates and handed over to Rosemary Agnew, former Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, who chaired the following morning sessions:

The rule of law today

The University of Edinburgh’s Professor Neil Walker opened proceedings with an overview of how the understanding and application of the rule of law is shifting and how a “spiralling attrition” of the concept has seen the UK drop from 10th to 15th place out of 142 countries listed in the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index.

Anyone completing a 2025 public law bingo card* for the day was rewarded early with the inevitable mention of Donald Trump in this first presentation.

Human rights update

Next up was Dan Byrne KC of Axiom Advocates with the human rights update. There has been a lot happening in this sphere, so the speaker chose to focus on a small number of cases in more detail rather than skim through all of the developments. This meant that some big topics, such as incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the change in understanding of the Equality Act 2010 – surely both on the 2025 bingo card! – were not covered.

Instead, the update discussed several interesting cases relating to parental rights in the Children’s Hearings System, the continued confusion around the applicable jurisdiction for age assessment challenges, the status of pre-action correspondence in a planning appeal, the recent winter fuel allowance petition and a prisoner claim that focused on whether the particular rehabilitation programme offered was appropriate.

Scots law update

Axiom Advocates’ David Blair then presented the Scots law update, considering several cases that touch on the scope of the supervisory jurisdiction and its interaction with questions of private law; the tendency in Scotland is for the courts not to determine matters that have a private law aspect to them, even where they involve decision-making by a public body.

This presentation also covered circumstances in which the Act of Union 1707 (perhaps another one on the bingo card) was unsuccessfully invoked in Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department. That case involved a challenge to the lawfulness of Section 11A of the of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which effectively excludes Cart judicial reviews in immigration cases. The operative part of that decision is paragraph 45, which arguably doesn’t do full justice to the nuanced debate heard in this case.

Turning to look at remedies, David considered the balancing of private and public interests in Petitions by Greenpeace Limited & Uplift for Judicial Review, where the court considered whether it was equitable to reduce the unlawful consents for offshore oil and gas exploration when substantial sums had already been spent on preparatory work for the development. Lord Ericht concluded that the developers had progressed with the works in the knowledge that the law was uncertain and this was at their risk. There was no criticism of the petitioners for not having sought interim orders to prevent the works from continuing.

Further on the topic of remedies, the decision in Petition of Y for Judicial Review is an example of the courts regulating how statutory duties should be delivered. The decision, which relates to local authority housing duties, has been reclaimed.

Rest of UK update

Perhaps one of the highlights of the day was an extremely thorough and clear presentation by Nusrat Zar of Herbert Smith Freehills covering public law developments across the rest of the UK. The first theme covered was consultation, which has been the subject of several recent English cases applying the Gunning principles on running a fair consultation process and, separately, considering whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of being consulted.

The presentation also covered the English approach to the intersection between public and private law, observing that this seems to be diverging from the Scottish approach. The English courts appear more likely to consider applications that include a contractual element and also a statutory regime or public function in the background to be within the supervisory jurisdiction; recent Scots law decisions suggest that would be less likely north of the border. Finally, English case law indicates that the courts are taking a more structured approach to considering rationality and reasonableness than has previously been apparent.

There was a change of chair for the afternoon sessions, which were expertly run by Lady Ross KC:

Keynote address by the Advocate General for Scotland

The keynote address was delivered by Baroness Catherine Smith of Cluny KC, the current Advocate General for Scotland. Baroness Smith took the opportunity to continue the profile-raising campaign she has pursued since taking office in August 2024, having been made aware that much of the legal profession, never mind the public, is not clear on what the role of the Advocate General, or the other UK law officers, really is.

The address included an explanation of the various different strands of the Advocate General’s role and how Baroness Smith is delivering these with a more Scottish-centred approach, making use of technology to allow her to attend to all of her duties while maintaining an Edinburgh-based home life.

Law officers in comparative perspective

A natural follow-up to the keynote address was a session delivered by Dr Conor McCormick of Queen’s University Belfast, explaining the law officers’ appointments and roles from a comparative perspective across the different jurisdictions. Of particular interest was the potential for conflict in the dual role of the current Counsel General for Wales, who also holds a separate ministerial post as Minister for Delivery despite the Counsel General position specifically being non-ministerial.

Change of UK government one year on: public law implications

The final session of the day was a panel session with presentations by Silke Goldberg of Herbert Smith Freehills, Professor Aileen McHarg from Durham University and Professor Thomas Horsley from the University of Liverpool.

This comprehensive session covered topics such as the development of the Sewel Convention (bingo!), which despite the recommendation of the Brown Commission is not to be put on a statutory footing but will be supplemented by a Memorandum of Understanding instead.

Ongoing intergovernmental tensions arising out of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 were also addressed with a suggestion that the exclusion process requires to be adjusted and de-politicised.

Closing remarks

Harper Macleod LLP’s Jennifer Jack closed out the conference with a vote of thanks on behalf of the SPLG Committee before delegates continued the conversation while networking at the drinks reception.

*The ‘2025 public law bingo card’ was hypothetical this year but is an idea for next year’s conference!

The SPLG runs several in-person and hybrid CPD events every year (many of which are free to attend) and details of those can be found at the SPLG website (www.splg.co.uk)

Jennifer Jack is an expert in dispute resolution and a partner at Harper Macleod LLP.